Satoshi politely slapped Daniel back down:
You are blind, more than 7 years have passed since then and bitoin still remains the slow retarded coin it was back then, how many years do we need to wait until we see a solution ? another decade?
Bitcoin is already as fast as swiping a credit card, employing 0-confirmations. The problem with Bitcoin is scaling, not Visa level speed (although nanotransaction speed of Bitcoin is a problem but that wasn’t what Satoshi was refuting). The quote I provided spoke about speed of confirmation, not scaling.
Afaics Dan did not paradigmatically improve on this. He created a centralized system which requires the coordination of whales, and thus all he did was essentially copy Visa. Perhaps we can argue that DPoS is more like federation.
Of course it is possible to scale to Visa speed with a centralized system. Duh. But scaling to billions of users requires decentralization, because coordination of whales turns in
a clusterfuck as the collectivized pie for fighting over becomes larger.
And Vitalik has already explained why the zero transaction fees is collectivized nonsense and will be attacked to hell once you put in a system with $billions riding on it and not some underutilized toy like Steemit.
And worse yet, he launches his money grabs in ways which arguably are getting closer and closer to securities law violations and enforcement actions.
In the meantime banks are becoming CHEAPER and FASTER than bitcoin is today (at least in EU with SEPA transfers), but yeah shitoshi "politely slaped" Daniel because Daniel 7 years ago could foresee a problem that still hasn't been solved yet!
Many of us saw the problems. And I was also one of those in discussions on this form with Dan back in 2013 about potential solutions and Dan was always proposing weird collectivized shit that did not adhere to the principles of decentralization. And he was working on pegs, which are nonsense
because pegs are never sustainable.
Lots of hair-brained Rube Goldberg machine type ideas. But Dan did come up with at least two or three really good ideas and I commend him (e.g. TaPoS, locking up onboarded tokens for a period of time, and onboarding users by awarding tokens although this last one was also my idea). But the money grabs and the obfuscation of centralization (and even falsely claiming he solved decentralized budgeting when he mathematically did not) does not impress me. And then the “useless token” sold to non-accredited USA persons raising some $300 million seems to me as if he (as a USA citizen) is taking some huge legal risks. If you’re impressed then go forth and reap what you sow. We can agree to disagree about priorities.
In the meantime Dan is building scalable blockchains with governance systems that are years ahead of any "competition" while others cling to the past and are showing their envy with FUD, no, FUD is not the right word, BS is!
There is no envy son. Is your head so big that you‘ve become delusional. Just giving readers another perspective so they can make their own informed decisions.
Sounds like you’re envious of my standing? If I was nobody, you would not bother to attack me so vehemently. I do try to be fair in my assessments and when @smooth came here then I acquiesced to factual corrections.
I almost became a supporter of Steem (even contemplated talking with the founders about joining as a developer) and actually I do still continue to comment positively about the facet of Steemit providing censorship resistant blogging (which is one of the reasons why I continued to blog there and not Medium), but as I analysed it
I realized the centralization makes it not what I want to be involved in trying to spread out of to the world and invest 5 - 10 years of my life in.
Hopefully I won’t start a project in haste, make some catastrophic errors (e.g. launching an illegal security, designing the onboarding to subject to the political
whims of some leftist whales[1], etc), and then leave to go do another money grab. I would intend to stick with my project and see it reach its maximum potential.
I smirked when
Dan stated he will not have to move on from EOS because he does not think it will run out of funding, and the reason for my smirk is if the regulators come after Blockone and seize their assets. Dan might end up causing huge problems for himself which exceed the problems from his ex-wife, which apparently launched his passion in this space (see below).
Dan
argues for a more incremental approach of creating a project and then leaving to make changes. Actually that would make sense if he offered an airdrop to his former project token hodlers. So excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical about whether Dan’s intentions are really more about money grabs. We’re all here hoping to make some money from our efforts, yet I believe the profit should come from the results not $300 million up front. I repeat that if Dan had raised $10 million to fund his ongoing efforts, I would be less skeptical.
Btw, if Daniel is creating governance systems and whale controlled clusterfucks then he is deceiving someone (maybe himself):
Finding Free Market Solutions to Secure Life, Liberty, and Property
About 5 years ago I came to a realization that the solution to the organized crime syndicate commonly referred to as government must be born from the free market. Furthermore, any free market alternative to government that is unable to free us from the current government will not be strong enough to prevent a new government from taking over.
Btw, Dan’s outcome with an ex-wife is similar to my experience in discovering I was a slave if I stayed in the USA, which is one reason I left and ended up in the Philippines which ended up being also a huge mistake because I caught Tuberculosis which apparently infected my gut and lymph nodes. So it appears that to similar to myself in the past when I was younger, Dan may have thrown caution to the wind in retaliation:
Meditation
It was at the depth of this despair that I learned how to let go. Holding on to anger and resentment was only holding me back. I started meditating and learning who I really was. I learned the joy of living in the moment and not dwelling on my story and the injustice of it all. I had to let go of things I could not change and focus on what I can do. This experience gave me the strength to be calm in any storm.
Renewed Commitment
Not wanting to give up, I became more determined than ever to find a way to get justice. I started getting back into Bitcoin and attempting to figure out ways to organize society that did not depend upon violence. More specifically, I started looking for ways that everyone could work together to defend ourselves against this organized, family destroying, crime syndicate.
And then he began to slip down that slippery slope of rationalizing collectivistic clusterfucks (
it is interesting because it somewhat parallels the decline I went through after I left the USA and started rationalizing various mistakes in judgement I made because underlying I was still so angry about being a slave in my home country due to an immigrant wife I stupidly brought to the USA):
I also learned that my capitalist mindset was too short-sighted. I began to see how building a community around the selfish motives of earning income by charging fees on transactions limited adoption. I learned that "inflation" isn't theft if it is done to compensate those who bring value. I learned that true theft is expecting people to work for free without getting a share in the product. This maturing perspective caused me to diverge from many of people who were originally attracted to BitShares.
I do not think anybody is refuting that Dan has created blockchains and accomplished a significant amount of development work. I certainly have never stated otherwise.
Btw
Daniel admitted that Bitshares governance was not working
as Paul Sztorc explained, but
Dan claims Steem solved decentralized budgeting but
I have pointed out it is mathematically impossible that it did or could.
[1] Note that Dan has always been (since I first knew of him in 2013) on this
theme of “non-violence”. That exhibits an unrealistic fantasy bubble type of mentality. And a leftist leaning lie to oneself. Some of the whales who were attracted to Steem seem to have a similar attitude based on my interactions with them over there.
As someone who attempts to follow the silver rule, "Don't do unto others what you don't want others doing to you.", I concluded that initiating violence against others is not an option. I know that I cannot remain rationally consistent while violating this rule.
The logical outcome of this belief is that using threats of violence to extort money from others for any purpose is something that is off of the table. This means taxes and everything taxes pays for is off the table. This means war and violent revolution is off the table, but that doesn't mean I want to sit back and do nothing!
Dan is still making technological mistakes. He
erroneously claimed that block producers in DPoS do not have the power to produce incorrect blocks. I understand he is thinking about verification of transactions, but he is continuing to making the mistake he made when I corrected him before. DPoS is Byzantine Agreement, and thus if more than 2/3 collude they can double-spend and it’s impossible to know which delegate block producers are lying and which are telling the truth about the ordering of transactions. He continues to not understand this. Yet he
seems to admit it. Additionally if more than 1/3 stop producing blocks, then there is no objectivity on the ordering of blocks, due to the liveness threshold being exceeded. That he does not acknowledge this and what can catastrophically happen by putting centralized power in the hands of a dozen delegates, exemplifies to me that he still doesn‘t quite grasp all the risks.
Just imagine if the government goes after these block producers with rubber hoses and national security gag orders.
Dan
even admits these delegated block producers can censor transactions, seize accounts, etc..
I see
Dan is making a legal argument for the EOS token sale not being a security, so he is essentially arguing that because they did not use the pooled funds for developing the software (which he claims are revenue for a software sale, not an investment in the future value of tokens). The Howey test will look beyond such obfuscations of the economic reality. The economic reality is the investors are depending on Blockone to provide the profit expectation for the tokens. I suppose analogous to
the arguments for the SAFT, they’re thinking that the pre-functional tokens are securities (although they claim they’re not and are revenue) and the functional tokens at the time when Blockone is not running the nodes are not securities because Blockone as the common enterprise will have ceased doing the significant efforts. Even if courts and regulators agree with that logic, the pre-functional tokens are clearly securities (as are the shares of a SAFT) and they have clearly been promoted to and sold to USA investors. Also the USA is not the only country with securities laws. And the funds invested were pooled with Blockone regardless whether they used the funds or used prior funds. One of the arguments for the SAFT is that because the pre-functional shares are treated as securities, then the public-at-large (i.e. the non-accredited investors) are protected from the sort of fraud and insufficient disclosure that securities law is designed to protect. So Blockone did not adhere to the protections that would make the SAFT concept worthy to society and regulators, and instead sold the pre-functional token (as an investment contract!) willy-nilly.
Dan was asked why they made the pre-functional token tradeable which adds
evidence that investors buy it to distribute it as underwriters, and Dan basically gave a nonsense response. This sort of hair-brained stuff from Dan is what boggles my mind. I presume he is thinking that if they have enough money they can afford attorneys and buy off regulators or perhaps even lead an overthrow of the powers that be? In that case, even a $billion is not enough.
Dan’s response to the question about what assurances do buyers of the token have is very incriminating in my opinion. Basically he is admitting they have to obfuscate the economic reality to attempt to evade securities law. In the prior response he stated that they needed to create a distribution, so this implies there is an expectation that some group will launch the live network honoring that distribution, and then they mention they will use the $300 million to develop ecosystem infrastructure and apps, yet then they somehow disclaim that that will be connected with this spontaneous formation of a live network that honors the distribution of the formerly “useless token”. Dan tries to imply that the distribution is distinct from the Blockone common enterprise (which issued the distribution in a token sale) and that the common enterprise is just selling open source software token which anyone might or might launch into a live network, and thus implying Blockone would not be the issuer of the eventual live network tokens and also claiming they are not issuing a security for the pre-functional ERC-20 token. This is clearly a premeditated obfuscation of the economic reality. Buyers of the EOS ERC-20 tokens are clearly expecting the live network to honor their share and they are clearly basing their profit expectation on the efforts of Blockone to develop the software that will form the live network. The current speculative trading on EOS ERC-20 tokens on exchanges is clearly based around those expectations of the ongoing efforts Blockone must complete. What are their lawyers smoking? I want some of that shit.
My understanding is that the securities law attorneys who advise for example Blockone, are paid to provide a legal
OPINION. This means their culpability is limited as long as they provided a reasonable justification for their opinion. Yet the culpability for breaking the law will rest on the principals of Blockone, not on the attorney. The attorneys could be fined or in the worst case dis-barred, but the criminal and culpability for returning the $300 million rests on the principals of Blockone and possibility any affiliates and underwriters complicit in the scheme which might include some of you shills in this thread.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal nor investing advice.
